1. Claimant further argues that we must read the amendment as procedural
because to do otherwise would be absurd and unjust. She hinges her argument on the
fact that, before the amendment, she would have been entitled to benefits retroactive to
the date of her injury, whereas now she is entitled to retroactive benefits of two weeks
only. It is not our role to decide whether the legislature's change is fair or unfair.
Claimant conceded at oral argument that the legislature was free to set an absolute limit
on benefit amounts. We do not see how the time limit set in amended ORS 656.262(4) is
any different.